Many researchers are refused a grant not because of a weak research concept, but because of a poorly structured and uninformative application. To avoid such mistakes, it is important to understand exactly what they involve. Today, we will examine the stages of work in which researchers most frequently encounter problems, and find out how to prevent them when preparing an application.
Risks when writing a grant application
In our previous article, we discussed what the structure of a high-quality grant application should look like, and examined its key thematic sections and their content. However, in addition to understanding the principles of writing an application, it is also important for researchers to be aware of the possible mistakes that can be made at various stages of its preparation.
Lack of clarity in formulating aims and objectives
One of the most common mistakes is an overly vague formulation of the research aims and objectives. Researchers often state, in abstract terms, why and how they intend to carry out the project. As a result, funders are unable to objectively assess the feasibility of the research or the appropriateness of providing funding.
In order to clearly outline the aim of the research and define the objectives that will contribute to achieving it, specific formulations should be used. For example, the vague phrase "assessment of the quality of education in universities" should be made more specific. In particular, it is worth stating which universities are being studied, which aspect of quality is being assessed (student performance, graduate employment, or satisfaction with the educational process), and by what method this will be measured.
Irrelevant methodology
Even if the author has clearly outlined the aims and objectives of the research, mistakes can still be made at the stage of describing the methodology. This section plays one of the key roles in the application, as it helps funders understand the approach to implementing the proposed ideas. Where can mistakes occur?
- The researcher has chosen a method that does not correspond to the type of research (for example, the aim is to identify a cause-and-effect relationship, but a purely descriptive method has been chosen, which only records the state of affairs without testing hypotheses).
- The researcher has chosen a method that does not correspond to the scale of the conclusions (the author wishes to cover an entire population but uses a very small sample for this purpose).
- The researcher has chosen a method that does not allow data to be collected comprehensively (the researcher conducted a survey using exclusively closed questions, which do not allow all key aspects to be covered for a full analysis).
Such inaccuracies can lead to a grant being refused, as they create the impression that the author does not fully understand the principles of conducting research or the relationship between its objectives and methods.
Unsubstantiated budget
The section on financial justification for the project is another element with which researchers often encounter considerable difficulty. The reason is that the figures in the budget must correspond so precisely to the described work plan that the funder can trace the logical connection between each item of expenditure and a specific stage of the research.
Researchers usually fall into one of two extremes: they either draw up an inflated budget, building in a "reserve" for unforeseen circumstances, or, conversely, submit an underestimated budget, which raises doubts as to how clearly the researchers understand the scale of the project.
To avoid this and to determine the budget correctly, several principles should be followed:
- link each item of expenditure to a specific stage or objective of the research, rather than presenting a sum without explaining its purpose
- support the stated figures with real sources – supplier prices, laboratory rates, the cost of software licences, and so on
- allocate expenditure in stages, in line with the project's timeline, rather than as a single overall sum for the entire period
Incorrect formatting and structuring of the application
It is important to remember that a grant application, like a scientific article, must meet clearly defined requirements. However, while a manuscript is guided by the editorial policy of a specific scientific journal, a grant application must comply exclusively with the requirements of the organisation providing the funding.
Differences in the formatting of a competitive grant application can be both purely technical and more substantial. In particular, they may relate to:
- requirements regarding whether an abstract is needed for the application, or a limit on the number of characters
- the format for submitting the application (completing a form via an online portal, or uploading a PDF file with the finished text)
- the presence of a strict template with fixed formatting that cannot be altered
- requirements for the necessary supporting documents (differences in the structure of the researcher's CV, the number of publications, whether a covering letter is required, and so on)
- limits on specific categories of expenditure
The aspects mentioned above are only some of the mistakes researchers most frequently make. There are many other inaccuracies and shortcomings that can lead to a grant being refused. The most important thing to remember is not to overload the application with unnecessary information, and to build a coherent logic across all the structural elements of your project.
If you need to publish an article in Scopus or Web of Science in order to secure a grant, get in touch with Scientific Publications. We will provide you with a free consultation and prepare an individual publication plan. In addition, we will support you at every stage of the process – from selecting a journal to indexing the article. To find out more about our services, complete the form below, and our manager will contact you shortly. Together towards new scientific achievements!
